North of the Stupid Line

There is currently a huge furore within the Deaf community following the publication of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It basically proposes in Clause 14, section 4, number 9 (Lines 23-30, Page 10), that:

Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or
mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—
(a) a serious physical or mental disability,
(b) a serious illness, or
(c) any other serious medical condition,
must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.

If the Bill is enacted, this could mean that Deaf people are prevented from having children, either through natural means, IVF or as donors, surrogates etc., simply because there is a chance that the child born will be Deaf.

This has huge ramifications for the Deaf community, particularly Deaf families with generations of Deaf children, such as my in-laws, and will impact my wife and I’s plans to have children.

I have done my bit for the Stop! Campaign, which has started in earnest. I have sent a clip of myself saying “Stop!”, and you should to, if you haven’t already. All you need to do is make a recording of your signing “Stop” and send it to joe@gwallgofi.com. Wear dark tops, and stand in front of plain background. Go here to see who has contributed so far.

Show your opposition to this Bill, before it’s too late.

Related links:

• Guest: Clark Denmark – Stop!
• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
• HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
• HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey
• HFEB: other places discussing Deaf Eugenics
• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal

(Yes I know, a post by me! :-O)

Compared to non-existent rights for Deaf people in the 1900s, has much changed? We used to be thrown in mental asylums because we were unable to communicate effectively, sign language was seen as a threat to our “normality” and ability to speak, if a deaf child was lucky (sic) enough to be educated, it was usually shit and very oralist.

Fast forward to the 21st century, the only difference seems to be that we’re not thrown in mental asylums any more (although I’m sure it still happens when a frustrated Deaf person who can’t communicate with hearing people and has no access to education, language or the Deaf community). The rest still exists. Audiologists continue to inflict the opinion on parents of Deaf children that sign language is a no no, and education is still very oralist, with Deaf schools having been shut down and mainstreaming is becoming more prevalent.

It’s articles like these that make my blood boil:

• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
• A question
• easydiscrimination.com

When are Deaf people gonna get some respect, equal opportunities and above all, NO discrimination?

Another thing that makes my blood boil is the Deaf community’s passivism. I’m one of them. I don’t do enough to challenge the attitudes I come across either. But if we all did, then perhaps, just perhaps, things would start to change.

Or is it a case of, “and pigs might fly!”?

It’s quite bizarre to think that we’ve got a new Prime Minister in Gordon Brown. Be honest, who looks the more Prime Minister-ly?

Source: BBC News: Cabinet faces: old and new

When I think of Brown jetting off to the USA to meet George Bush at the White House, there’s something wrong with that image. The same is true of Brown jetting off to the Middle East, Africa, even Europe, to meet with other world leaders. It could simply be that Blair was PM for 10 years, and he had a high international profile, which Brown has yet to attain.

For the duration of Brown’s premiership, I have a feeling that he will be a domestic PM, in the sense that his policies will be UK-focused rather than international. To be fair, there is a great deal to do in the UK, and the BBC has provided a useful summary of the issues Brown faces: What’s in Brown’s in-tray?. In short, he has to sort out the NHS, education and security. It’s a well known fact that despite increased spending in the NHS and education, there has been little improvement. Why? I suspect it’s all been swallowed up in red tape, a common issue within British society.

This week, Brown announced his new Cabinet, and the one politician I’ve got my eye on is David Milliband, the new Foreign Secretary. He had a blog when he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and if he has one as Foreign Secretary, I’ll definitely be subscribing to its feed. He’s also young, Jewish, and most importantly, not afraid to criticise the United States and Israel. There’s been enough pussyfooting around – time for some harsh words and more common sense on the international field.

These are interesting times for British politics.

There has been considerable debate in recent years about the conflicts instigated by the USA and the UK in Afghanistan and Iraq. The aim of this post is to ascertain just exactly what it’s all about.

Afghanistan

Strictly speaking, the war in Afghanistan began with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Attributed to Al-Qaeda, an international alliance of militant terrorist organisations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, the attacks prompted the US to declare war on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. This was the beginning of the war on terrorism.

A curious thing apparently occurred following the attacks. Members of bin Laden’s family, who were in the US at the time of the attacks, were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace. According to Vanity Fair, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI (( Propaganda Matrix, “Bin Laden family allowed 9/11 leave” )). It is almost certain that at the time, bin Laden was a main suspect for the September 11 attacks, so why arrange for his family to be flown out?

An aerial bombing campaign was initiated against Afghanistan by the US and the UK, with the ultimate aim of capturing bin Laden, destroying Al-Qaeda, and removing the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to Al-Qaeda. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but the invasion has largely failed, with the future of Afghanistan now hanging in the balance. It has a weak government, Taliban forces are re-emerging and the poppy fields are ripe with opium.

So then, what was the point of invading Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden is apparently still at large and Afghanistan is the largest supplier of heroin world-wide – 90% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan (( Baldauf, S and Bowers, F, “Afghanistan riddled with drug ties”, The Christian Science Monitor )). The invasion has elevated human rights infringement of women somewhat, but with the resurgence in Taliban forces, these rights are again under threat.

(more…)

Further to my post about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s memoirs, Living History, after receiving Bill Clinton’s autobiography for my 24th birthday back in 2004, I’m very pleased to announce that I’ve finished it at long last!

I have to say that Bill does certainly know how to waffle. However, I appreciated the detail, honesty and frankness of his account. He has certainly had an interesting life. I liked the way he brushed over the Monica Lewinsky issue; he simply said that he’d done something inappropriate that he was incredibly ashamed of.

What I’d like to pick up on is the partisan nature of American politics. On pages 862-863, Bill states:

“When the New Right Republicans had taken power in Congress in 1995, I had blocked their most extreme designs and had made further progress in economic, social, and environmental justice the price of our co-operation. I understood why the people who equated political, economic, and social conservatism with God’s will hated me. I wanted an America of shared benefits, shared responsibilities, and equal participation in a democratic community. The New Right Republicans wanted an America in which wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of the “right” people, who maintained majority support by demonizing a rolling succession of minorities whose demands for inclusion threatened their hold on power. They also hated me because I was so apostate, a white southern Protestant who could appeal to the very people they had always taken for granted.”

That sums it all up really, doesn’t it? While the Democrats are more concerned about improving the lives of the working and middle classes, and asking the upper classes to pay a bit more in taxes, the Republicans want the upper classes to pay less and the lower and middle classes to pay more in taxes. Republicans aren’t interested in human rights and the environment. They weren’t interested in working with Bill; they just wanted to bring him down because he was such a good President.

I realise that I have only read one side of the story; Bill and Hillary’s. So I will see if I can get hold of a book published by a Republican, perhaps Newt Gringrich, and see what I think thereafter.

For now, however, I would say that I’d rather be a Democrat than a Republican. Does that make me a Democrat?

I’ll look into how the UK Conservatives and Labour parties compare with the US Democrats and Republicans in a later post.